A spoonful of sugar might make the medicine go down. But it also makes blood pressure and cholesterol go up, along with your risk for liver failure, obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human body that they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).
The researchers propose regulations such as taxing all foods and drinks that include added sugar, banning sales in or near schools and placing age limits on purchases.

Although the commentary might seem straight out of the Journal of Ideas That Will Never Fly, the researchers cite numerous studies and statistics to make their case that added sugar — or, more specifically, sucrose, an even mix of glucose and fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and in table sugar made from sugar cane and sugar beets — has been as detrimental to society as alcohol and tobacco.

And then it goes into high gear. I kinda like the idea of giving companies incentives to make our foods healthier.

Quote:

Lustig, a medical doctor in UCSF's Department of Pediatrics, compares added sugar to tobacco and alcohol (coincidentally made from sugar) in that it is addictive, toxic and has a negative impact on society, thus meeting established public health criteria for regulation. Lustig advocates a consumer tax on any product with added sugar.

Among Lustig's more radical proposals are to ban the sale of sugary drinks to children under age 17 and to tighten zoning laws for the sale of sugary beverages and snacks around schools and in low-income areas plagued by obesity, analogous to alcoholism and alcohol regulation.

Economists, however, debate as to whether a consumer tax — such as a soda tax proposed in many U.S. states — is the most effective means of curbing sugar consumption. Economists at Iowa State University led by John Beghin suggest taxing the sweetener itself at the manufacturer level, not the end product containing sugar.

This concept, published last year in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy, would give companies an incentive to add less sweetener to their products. After all, high-fructose corn syrup is ubiquitous in food in part because it is so cheap and serves as a convenient substitute for more high-quality ingredients, such as fresher vegetables in processed foods.

And I reiterate: Don't be a fucking child. Do you realize how HUGE of an impact that would be if some shitty legislation were passed that taxed foods on the consumer end for having high levels of artificially introduced sugar? Not to mention the ridiculous degrees these guys want to go to. But like it or not, mock it or take it seriously, it is already happening. Maybe you don't realize it, but LOTS of stuff you probably eat on a regular basis, unless you've been monitoring it closely, has sugar or high fructose corn syrup high up on its ingredients lists. Take Heinz ketchup for instance, HFC is the #1 ingredient._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Dude, don't be a fucking child. I quoted the original title, dumb ass.

If you didn't write that nonsense, then I have no idea why you're freaking out over my insulting it. It's a "science" article that is reporting on an opinion piece. It sensationally screams SCIENTISTS SAY THIS while providing no evidence that the argument has any legitimate data to stand on. Then it careens off into theoretical economics.

In short, the article demonstrates basically everything that is wrong with science journalism today.

But hey, I'm a researcher, that means my opinions are worth presenting as fact without discussing evidence too right?

Dude, don't be a fucking child. I quoted the original title, dumb ass.

If you didn't write that nonsense, then I have no idea why you're freaking out over my insulting it. It's a "science" article that is reporting on an opinion piece. It sensationally screams SCIENTISTS SAY THIS while providing no evidence that the argument has any legitimate data to stand on. Then it careens off into theoretical economics.

In short, the article demonstrates basically everything that is wrong with science journalism today.

But hey, I'm a researcher, that means my opinions are worth presenting as fact without discussing evidence too right?

I'm not the one that failed to even try to discuss something intelligently.

And I made any arguments? You made the mistake in assuming that I agreed with anything beyond the idea of taxing companies for adding extra sugar. An idea which happens to be a counter point to the main focus of the article. In case you didn't notice this entire piece was written with a biased against Lustig, such as "Although the commentary might seem straight out of the Journal of Ideas That Will Never Fly..."_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Overreacting to Silliness With Cursing and Ad Hominems Doesn't Make the Article You're Referencing Suck Less, Researcher Says_________________The older I get, the more certain I become of one thing. True and abiding cynicism is simply a form of cowardice.